College Football Playoff

Dedicated to College Football and Draft discussion.
post

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Four Verticals » Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:34 pm

NavyBuc wrote:
Four Verticals wrote:
They still would have been one of the four best (Alabama that is) whether one team had a better argument or not. After all we're going with the FOUR Best here aren't we?


If Wisconsin was a great team and one of the best, they would have won last night against a top-10 team. They had a chance to prove themselves. They didn't. End of story.

Bama was chosen over Ohio State because they were a better team in the eyes of the committee. The committee chairman even said as much in his interview with ESPN. Ohio State shot themselves in the foot with the loss to Iowa. I personally think Alabama has holes in it and their qb play has been suspect, but when you compare them with the teams in questions (Ohio State and USC), they were the best of those 3.


I know why Alabama was chosen. You can apply the same logic to Wisconsin had they won. Despite an undefeated season, Alabama was the better team.
Four Verticals
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:12 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Alpha » Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:46 am

Could y'all imagine the shit-show an 8 team playoff would bring?

LMAO!
Alpha
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:51 am
Location: St. Pete
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 77 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Ken Carson » Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:34 am

They should have put Auburn in over Bama. At least we know who is better there.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Kress » Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:51 am

Ken Carson wrote:They should have put Auburn in over Bama. At least we know who is better there.



A 3 loss team? Seriously? There is no way that would fly. I'm the first to hate Alabama, and Ohio State for that matter, but no way.
Image
User avatar
Kress
 
Posts: 3287
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 201 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Ken Carson » Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:08 pm

Kress wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:They should have put Auburn in over Bama. At least we know who is better there.



A 3 loss team? Seriously? There is no way that would fly. I'm the first to hate Alabama, and Ohio State for that matter, but no way.

It's tongue in cheek, and a shot at the 'just the four best teams' argument. There has to be more objectivity than that.

Look at it this way. Take the history out of Alabama and Wisconsin, so all you know about them is what happened on the field this season. Neither of these teams played anybody good until their last game of the season and both teams lost. The teams they lost to are basically a push.

That is where I'd like the committee to say 'Oh, you scheduled an FCS team in November? You're out.' Instead, Bama gets in based on history and reputation.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby NavyBuc » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:35 pm

Ken Carson wrote:They should have put Auburn in over Bama. At least we know who is better there.


On a neutral field, Bama is better. Auburn proved how much better they are at home vs. away from home. The Georgia game proved that. Shows you how good Clemson is that they were able to go there and win early in the season.

As for the "Four best teams" argument, I think it's more of a comparison to Bama vs. Ohio State. Obviously, the undefeated or even 1-loss conference champs with an impressive resume out are going to get in, like Oklahoma, Clemson and Georgia. Same goes for Wisconsin if they would have won. Whether they're "the four best" is up for debate. But I think when you have a situation where you're trying to break a tie in the case of Bama-Ohio State, sometimes you just go with the "eye test" and who is better. I think from watching the games this year, particularly if you study game like Ohio State-Iowa, Bama looks to be the better team. I think most everyone here would agree to the fact Alabama is a better team than Ohio State.
NavyBuc
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:07 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Ken Carson » Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:54 pm

NavyBuc wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:They should have put Auburn in over Bama. At least we know who is better there.


On a neutral field, Bama is better. Auburn proved how much better they are at home vs. away from home. The Georgia game proved that. Shows you how good Clemson is that they were able to go there and win early in the season.

As for the "Four best teams" argument, I think it's more of a comparison to Bama vs. Ohio State. Obviously, the undefeated or even 1-loss conference champs with an impressive resume out are going to get in, like Oklahoma, Clemson and Georgia. Same goes for Wisconsin if they would have won. Whether they're "the four best" is up for debate. But I think when you have a situation where you're trying to break a tie in the case of Bama-Ohio State, sometimes you just go with the "eye test" and who is better. I think from watching the games this year, particularly if you study game like Ohio State-Iowa, Bama looks to be the better team. I think most everyone here would agree to the fact Alabama is a better team than Ohio State.


Why was Bama better than Wisconsin, though? Sticking to only things that happened on the field this season. You jumped to making it about Bama vs Ohio State for some reason. I was comparing two 1 loss teams who didn't win their conference.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby NavyBuc » Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:06 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
NavyBuc wrote:
On a neutral field, Bama is better. Auburn proved how much better they are at home vs. away from home. The Georgia game proved that. Shows you how good Clemson is that they were able to go there and win early in the season.

As for the "Four best teams" argument, I think it's more of a comparison to Bama vs. Ohio State. Obviously, the undefeated or even 1-loss conference champs with an impressive resume out are going to get in, like Oklahoma, Clemson and Georgia. Same goes for Wisconsin if they would have won. Whether they're "the four best" is up for debate. But I think when you have a situation where you're trying to break a tie in the case of Bama-Ohio State, sometimes you just go with the "eye test" and who is better. I think from watching the games this year, particularly if you study game like Ohio State-Iowa, Bama looks to be the better team. I think most everyone here would agree to the fact Alabama is a better team than Ohio State.


Why was Bama better than Wisconsin, though? Sticking to only things that happened on the field this season. You jumped to making it about Bama vs Ohio State for some reason. I was comparing two 1 loss teams who didn't win their conference.


Did Wisconsin even beat a ranked team this year? Bama beat a full strength FSU, Miss. State and LSU. I know it's not a schedule like Clemson, but it's more than Wisconsin.
NavyBuc
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:07 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:36 am

NavyBuc wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:
Why was Bama better than Wisconsin, though? Sticking to only things that happened on the field this season. You jumped to making it about Bama vs Ohio State for some reason. I was comparing two 1 loss teams who didn't win their conference.


Did Wisconsin even beat a ranked team this year? Bama beat a full strength FSU, Miss. State and LSU. I know it's not a schedule like Clemson, but it's more than Wisconsin.


The full strength FSU argument is nonsense. Full strength of a 6 loss team is still poop unless the entire first team offense and defense were injured in the Alabama game. Ohio State won a National Championship with their 3rd string QB. FSU couldn't keep Boston College within 4 touchdowns.

Mississippi State is ranked 24 with a home loss against a 6-loss team. And that comeback against Arkansas was... concerning. Meanwhile, LSU also has a home loss to Sunbelt powerhouse Troy. Yes, they actually play football there.

To answer your question, yes. Wisconsin did beat 9-3 (and number 20 ranked) Northwestern. A further point, Wisconsin did not schedule an FCS school in 2017.

And for what it's worth, Jeff Sagrin does an analysis of more than W/L record but home vs away W/L to help better determine SOS (since if all your difficult games are at home, that's actually an easier schedule).

Wisconsin - 50th toughest schedule
Alabama - 56th toughest schedule (the SEC was trash outside 3 teams this year)
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Alpha » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:00 am

NavyBuc wrote: Bama beat a full strength FSU, Miss. State and LSU. I know it's not a schedule like Clemson, but it's more than Wisconsin.


Wow.

This is where you're gonna make your stand?

Alabama beat FSU and Miss. St.?!

That's pretty weak.
Alpha
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:51 am
Location: St. Pete
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 77 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:25 am

It was really splitting hairs this year for that 4th spot. At the end of the day after all the arguments for and against OSU, Bama, USC, and Wisconsin the folks in vegas would've had Bama favored over the others. So I don't have a problem with it.

Give Bama a month to gameplan and heal up to get some players back and they will give Clemson all they can handle.

Don't be surprised if Bama is favored over Clemson, and if Saban is an underdog on a neutral field I'd bet for the tide to roll.
Last edited by DreadNaught on Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9311
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 373 times
Been thanked: 375 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:27 am

All the computer projections have Bama the most likely to win the championship for the little that that’s worth


I think this is one of the best final 4 yet in terms of parity and matchups
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2626
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:40 am

DreadNaught wrote:It was really splitting hairs this year for that 4th spot. At the end of the day after all the arguments for and against OSU, Bama, USC, and Wisconsin the folks in vegas would've had Bama favored over the others. So I don't have a problem with it.

Give Bama a month to gameplan and heal up to get some players back and they will give Clemson all they can handle.

Don't be surprised if Bama is favored over Clemson, and if Saban is an underdog on neutral field I'd bet for the tide to roll.


Bama is -1 as of Sunday.

But again, I really think they should be punished for scheduling Mercer. Their conference was weak this year. It had 3 good teams (they played one of them... and LOST), a bunch of chaff, and some downright awful squads like Florida, Tennessee and Arkansas. If UCF is barred from consideration because they played a non-p5 schedule, you can't ignore the fact that, of all the teams in consideration for the last spot, only one scheduled an FCS team.

If this is really the P5 championship playoff, having a school like Mercer on your schedule should be treated like a loss when determining who gets into the four.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:02 am

IMO they were punished for scheduling Mercer. If OSU has 1 loss they would be in ahead of Bama partly because they scheduled OU.

OOC is one of many things that matter. It’s just not the be all and end all. Just like winning the conference. Just like game control, just like who you lose to, etc

I think the committee got it right...though I would have put OU as #1
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2626
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 am

Ken Carson wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:It was really splitting hairs this year for that 4th spot. At the end of the day after all the arguments for and against OSU, Bama, USC, and Wisconsin the folks in vegas would've had Bama favored over the others. So I don't have a problem with it.

Give Bama a month to gameplan and heal up to get some players back and they will give Clemson all they can handle.

Don't be surprised if Bama is favored over Clemson, and if Saban is an underdog on neutral field I'd bet for the tide to roll.


Bama is -1 as of Sunday.

But again, I really think they should be punished for scheduling Mercer. Their conference was weak this year. It had 3 good teams (they played one of them... and LOST), a bunch of chaff, and some downright awful squads like Florida, Tennessee and Arkansas. If UCF is barred from consideration because they played a non-p5 schedule, you can't ignore the fact that, of all the teams in consideration for the last spot, only one scheduled an FCS team.

If this is really the P5 championship playoff, having a school like Mercer on your schedule should be treated like a loss when determining who gets into the four.


I get the argument about Bama's schedule. But I don't know how much you can penalize them for something that is beyond their control. I get the 'SEC sucked this year' argument. But headed into the season the SEC West was arguably the most difficult/competitive division of any of the P5 conferences, in addition Bama scheduled FSU in a neutral site game. Obviously the SEC West and FSU did not meet preseason expectations, but it's not as if Bama was trying to sneak their way into the playoffs by scheduling cupcakes.

The fact there was a real debate between a 1-loss Bama and a 2 loss OSU/USC conference champ is a testement to Bama's lack of SOV. But you can't ignore a 35pt loss to an unranked team and while OSU did beat PennSt and Wisconsin when both were in the top 5 (Bama beat a top 5 FSU) who exactly did EITHER PennSt OR Wisconsin beat this season?

I actually think USC has a better 2 loss conference champ resume than OSU did.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9311
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 373 times
Been thanked: 375 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:24 am

Zarniwoop wrote:IMO they were punished for scheduling Mercer. If OSU has 1 loss they would be in ahead of Bama partly because they scheduled OU.

OOC is one of many things that matter. It’s just not the be all and end all. Just like winning the conference. Just like game control, just like who you lose to, etc

I think the committee got it right...though I would have put OU as #1


Any 1 loss P5 champ would've been in the playoff this year. The Iowa loss is what ruined OSU's playoff chances. Nobody else being considered had a 35pt loss to an unranked team. Couple that with being a 2 loss team and imo OSU was fortunate to be considered.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9311
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 373 times
Been thanked: 375 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:08 am

Yes, my point is that scheduling does matter and it always will. If there are two one loss P5 champs fighting for #4, then one of the criteria will certainly be OOC schedule.

Fans overreact every year by isolating one difference between #4 and #5 and saying ridiculous stuff...for example, there is quite a bit of grumbling on ESPN and CFN that winning a conference doesn't matter anymore because Bama got in over two teams that won their conference.

That is simply a knee jerk reaction. Conference championship still does matter. But it doesn't trump everything else.

Both USC and OSU probably got a few kudos for scheduling ND and OU. And should they have been on equal grounds of BAMA in # of losses it would have helped them.

IMO...# of losses matters most. But even that isn't a be all and end all.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2626
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:27 am

And like I said, scheduling Mercer should count as a loss when deciding who gets into the FBS playoff that is reserved only for P5 schools. I mean, the Eagles don't get to schedule Rowan College in South Jersey for one of their December playoff push games.

And to be fair, I said the same thing the Saturday when Alabama played Mercer. If the Committee had an stones, thy would have dropped Bama to 5th from 1st after the game and said 'OK, go ahead and win your way in.' Then that loss to Auburn ends their season and nobody in major college football is ever scheduling a cupcake in November again. Might not even do it in September.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:47 pm

I don’t know about counting it as a loss. Let’s say Bama scheduled Idaho instead.

Is that really any different?



—one thing I definitely don’t like is that in most of the strength of schedule computer programs, they ignore games against FCS teams. I’m not sure which method the committee uses for their data point
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2626
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:32 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:I don’t know about counting it as a loss. Let’s say Bama scheduled Idaho instead.

Is that really any different?



—one thing I definitely don’t like is that in most of the strength of schedule computer programs, they ignore games against FCS teams. I’m not sure which method the committee uses for their data point

While I understand your point about Idaho, scheduling an FCS team is not something you can accidentally do. The committee should have made a statement that your schedule matters.

With Mercer counted in the Sagarin model, Bama had the 56th toughest schedule.

Other playoff contenders:
Clemson - 8
Georgia - 37
Oklahoma - 29

For reference:
USC - 16
Ohio State - 28
Wisconsin - 50
UCF - 83
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby mdb1958 » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:50 pm

Is toughest schedule? Hardest to win the game or hardest to lose the game.
mdb1958
 
Posts: 7015
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 136 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:55 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:I don’t know about counting it as a loss. Let’s say Bama scheduled Idaho instead.

Is that really any different?



—one thing I definitely don’t like is that in most of the strength of schedule computer programs, they ignore games against FCS teams. I’m not sure which method the committee uses for their data point

While I understand your point about Idaho, scheduling an FCS team is not something you can accidentally do. The committee should have made a statement that your schedule matters.

With Mercer counted in the Sagarin model, Bama had the 56th toughest schedule.

Other playoff contenders:
Clemson - 8
Georgia - 37
Oklahoma - 29

For reference:
USC - 16
Ohio State - 28
Wisconsin - 50
UCF - 83



I think ADs have a tough choice to make

Scheduling a top 10 OOC game will definitely help you if you win ... but clearly will hurt you if you lose

The safest route still seems to shoot low...I think you are less likely to get burnt. For example, let’s say Ohio State has a 50% chance of losing to OU. That’s riskier than say Alabama’s chance of being left out of the top 4 with 1 loss because of their schedule
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2626
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:06 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:While I understand your point about Idaho, scheduling an FCS team is not something you can accidentally do. The committee should have made a statement that your schedule matters.

With Mercer counted in the Sagarin model, Bama had the 56th toughest schedule.

Other playoff contenders:
Clemson - 8
Georgia - 37
Oklahoma - 29

For reference:
USC - 16
Ohio State - 28
Wisconsin - 50
UCF - 83



I think ADs have a tough choice to make

Scheduling a top 10 OOC game will definitely help you if you win ... but clearly will hurt you if you lose

The safest route still seems to shoot low...I think you are less likely to get burnt. For example, let’s say Ohio State has a 50% chance of losing to OU. That’s riskier than say Alabama’s chance of being left out of the top 4 with 1 loss because of their schedule

It should matter. Trying to 'aim low' should be punished when their are this many teams fighting to get in.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:49 pm

Except Bama didn't "aim low" like you both are saying.

They play in the SEC West and scheduled FSU ooc.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9311
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 373 times
Been thanked: 375 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:05 pm

DreadNaught wrote:Except Bama didn't "aim low" like you both are saying.

They play in the SEC West and scheduled FSU ooc.

Bro, Mercer didn't have football for 70 years prior to 2013. They are the definition of aiming low.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Kress » Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:18 pm

DreadNaught wrote:Except Bama didn't "aim low" like you both are saying.

They play in the SEC West and scheduled FSU ooc.


They didn't even win their division. Much less their conference.

Image
Image
User avatar
Kress
 
Posts: 3287
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 201 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Kress » Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:20 pm

That's a big picture.
Image
User avatar
Kress
 
Posts: 3287
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 201 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby uscbucsfan » Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:20 pm

With a fake quote...
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2475
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:09 pm

Kress wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:Except Bama didn't "aim low" like you both are saying.

They play in the SEC West and scheduled FSU ooc.


They didn't even win their division. Much less their conference.

Look at the OOC wins for th SEC West.

Auburn: Georgia Southern, Mercer, Louisiana Monroe (lost to Clemson)
Alabama: Florida State, Fresno State, Colorado State, Mercer
Miss State: Charleston Southern, BYU, UMass, Louisiana Tech
LSU: BYU, Chattanooga, Syracuse (lost to Troy)
TA&M: Nicholls, Louisiana, New Mexico (lost to UCLA)
Ole Miss: South Alabama, UT Martin, Louisiana (lost to Cal)
Arkansas: FAMU, New Mexico St, Coastal Carolina (lost to TCU)

Is there a single good OOC win in the entire division? That is a ton of inflated records. Just about every decent team played by the SEC west beat the SEC west. 2-4 as a division vs the P5, with the two wins being against the last place and second to last place teams in the ACC Atlantic.

Alabama aimed low with their OOC schedule, played in a horrible division inflated by cupcakes and scheduled a team who finished below Wake Forest in football.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: College Football Playoff

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:24 pm

Alabama played 3 bowl teams in their OOC, one which is traditionally ranked very high

is it the strongest in football? Nope

Is it respectable? Absolutely.




As to your larger point about SEC OOC schedules in general...I agree with it. But not Bama.

They have played FSU, USC, Wisconsin, Va Tech and Michigan all recently
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2626
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to College Football/Draft Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests